Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Forest Department Udaipur vs Smt. Meena And Ors on 13 May, 2022
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 24)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10774/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Uaipur through Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kanna S/o Medha, by Caste Bhil, R/o Village Shikarvadi,
Dist. Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
2. Dunga S/o. Deva, By Caste Bhill, R/o. Village Dewali,
Gordhan Vilas, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Kalu S/o Puna, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali, Goverdhan
Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Shobhalala S/o Puna, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Sitaram S/o Puna, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Bhagwani S/o Puna, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Smt. Jamki W/o Puna, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Pannalal S/o Dhanji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Fanda,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Ukar Lal S/o Naru, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Savina, Dist.
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
10. Chagan S/o Benaji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Gordhan
Villas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
11. Hiralal S/o Benaji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Goverdhan
Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(2 of 24)
12. Tulsiram S/o Benaji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Goverdhan
Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
13. Dhapu D/o Benaji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Goverdhan
Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
14. Laxmi D/o Benaji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Goverdhan
Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
15. Udi D/o Benaji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Goverdhan Vilas,
Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
16. Laxmi D/o Benaji, through natural mother Dhanki W/o
Bena, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Goverdhan Vilas, Dist.
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
17. Raju S/o Dhanki, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Aayad, Dist.
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
18. Logar S/o Lachha, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali
Gordhan Villas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
19. Mitthalal S/o Lachha, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
20. Shyamlal S/o Lachha, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
21. Devilal S/o Lachha, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
22. Smt. Vali D/o Lachha, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
23. Teka S/o Pratha, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
24. Rupa S/o Chena, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(3 of 24)
25. Lehri Lal S/o Dalla, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Savina, Dist.
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
26. Smt. Dhulki W/o Hukma, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
27. Shambhu S/o Nanda Ji by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
28. Lilki D/o Nanadaji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
29. Hakra S/o Kana, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
30. Khema S/o Kana, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
31. Naresh S/o Kana, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
32. Smt. Pyari W/o Kana, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
33. Budharam S/o Dhanna, by Caste Bhill, R/o Salumber, Dist.
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
34. Kesiya S/o Dewa Ji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
35. Khema, S/o Kana, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
36. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
37. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
38. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
39. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(4 of 24)
Revenue, Ajmer.
-------Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10775/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Uaipur through Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Meena W/o Shri Kalu, R/o village Sawina, Tehsil Girwa,
Dist. Udaipur.
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
-----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10777/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Uaipur through Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kalu S/o Shri Shankar Lal, by Caste Jain, R/o Sawina, Tehsil
Girwa, Dist. Udaipur..
2. Authorised Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust,
Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(5 of 24)
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10778/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shankar S/o. Shri Naaria, R/o. Village Dewali Gordhan Villas,
Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Authorised Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10779/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Movani W/o. Shri Bherulal, R/o. Village Dewali
Gordhan Villas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Smt. Savita W/o. Shri Shivlal, R/o. Village Dewali Gordhan
Villas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
3. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust,
Udaipur.
4. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
5. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
6. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(6 of 24)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10780/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Hukmi Bai W/o. Bherulal, B/c Bhill, R/o. Village
Dewali, Gordhan Vilas, Teshil Girwa, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10781/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Lehri Lal S/o. Dalla, B/c Bhill, R/o. Village Dewali,
Gordhan Vilas, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Panna Lal S/o. Pema Ram, B/c Bhill, R/o. Village Dewali,
Gordhan Vilas, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
4. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
5. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
6. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(7 of 24)
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10782/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kushaal S/o. Shri Ramaji, R/o. Village Dewali Gordhan
Vilas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10783/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kalulal S/o. Shri Shankar Lal, R/o. Village Sawina,
Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board
of Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(8 of 24)
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10784/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mangilal S/o Shri Lalu Ram, by Caste Bhill, R/o
Brahmpol, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Ukar S/O Naru, by Caste Bhill, R/o Sawina, Dist.
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Dalla S/o Uda, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Aayad, Dist.
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Arjun Lal S/o Dhanji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Aayad, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Harzi S/o Dhanji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Aayad,
Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Raju S/o Dhanji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Aayad,
Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Lehrilal S/o Dalla Ji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village Aayad,
Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Laxmilal S/o Dalla Ji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Aayad, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Smt. Dhulki Bai W/o. Hukma, B/c Bhill, R/o. Villlage
Dewali, Gordhan Vilas, District Udaipur.
10. Nanalal S/o Ramji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Jaisamand, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
11. Ramji S/o Dhanji, by Caste Bhill, R/o. Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
12. Chena S/o Bhajjaram, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Dewali, Gordhan Villas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
13. Mohan S/o Bhajjaram, by Caste Bhill, R/o. Village
Dewali, Gordhan Villas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(9 of 24)
14. Narayan S/o Bhajjaram, by Caste Bhill, R/o. Village
Dewali, Gordhan Villas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
15. Kamla D/o Bhajjaram, by Caste Bhill, R/o. Village
Dewali, Gordhan Villas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
16. Prabhulal S/o Ramji, by Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Jaisamand Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
17. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban
Improvement Trust, Udaipur.
18. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
19. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
20. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar,
Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10785/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Suraj W/o. Shri Bherulal, R/o. Village Dewali,
Gordhan Vilas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Bherulal S/o. Shri Nanaji, R/o. Village Dewali, Gordhan
Vilas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
3. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
4. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
5. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
6. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
---Respondents
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(10 of 24)
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10786/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Movani W/o. Shri Bherulal, R/o. Village Dewali
Gordhan Vilas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Smt. Savita W/o. Shri Shivlal, R/o. Village Dewali, Gordhan
Vilas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
3. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
4. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
5. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
6. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
---Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10787/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Suraj W/o. Shri Bherulal, R/o. Village Dewali, Gordhan
Vilas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Bherulal S/o. Shri Nanaji, R/o. Village Dewali, Gordhan Vilas,
Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
3. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust,
Udaipur.
4. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
5. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
6. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
---Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10788/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(11 of 24)
Versus
1. Sundar S/o. Gawra, B/c Bhil, R/o. Village Dewali, Gordhan
Vilas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Dhanji S/o. Gawra, B/c Bhill, R/o. Village Dewali, Gordhan
Vilas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Shanker S/o. Dewa, B/c Bhill, R/o. Village Dewali, Gordhan
Vilas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust,
Udaipur.
5. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
6. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
7. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
---Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10789/2015
Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur through
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Lalit S/o. Shri Surendra, R/o. Village Gordhan Vilas, Dewali,
Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust,
Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar, Board of
Revenue, Ajmer.
---Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate &
AAG assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu
Mr. Girish Joshi
Mr. Loonkaran Purohit, A.G.C.
Mr. Dilip Kawadia
Mr. SL Sukhwal
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(12 of 24)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
13/05/2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present batch of writ petitions arise out of the orders
passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur and the Board of
Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer having similar facts, therefore, the
writ petitions are being heard and decided finally by this common
order.
The facts of Writ Petition No.10775/2015 (Forest
Department, Udaipur Vs. Smt. Meena & Ors.) are being taken into
consideration while deciding the present batch of writ petitions.
Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the
Forest Department, Udaipur preferred this writ petition being
aggrieved of the Allotment Order dated 21.11.1974 passed by
Sub-Divisional Officer, Udaipur (Annexure-4), Order dated
17.12.2007 passed by Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur
(Annexure-6) under Section 90B of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,
1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act"), Order dated
25.11.2013 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur
(Annexure-8), and the order dated 04.12.2014 passed by the
Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Annexure-9).
The Forest Department, Udaipur basically approached this
Court by way of filing the present writ petition on the ground that
in view of the Notification issued on 27.04.1942 (Annexure-1),
declaring the disputed land as "Reserved Forest" under the Mewar
Forest Act, 1942, was allotted to the respondents. It is submitted
that on 13.10.1964, a final Notification (Annexure-2) was issued,
whereby, 2900.80 acres of land was declared as forest land. This
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(13 of 24)
2900.80 acres of land was comprising of villages Sisaram,
Goverdhan Vilas (Now Dewali), Balicha, Nai and Udaipur City.
According to the petitioner, this land was demarcated by
Monologue Pillars depicting the same to be the forest land. As per
Section 4 & 20 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and Rule 6 of the
Rajasthan Forest (Settlement) Rules, 1958, there was no
requirement of giving the details of the Khasra Numbers as the
limits of the forest can be described by roads, rivers, ridges or
other well known/readily intelligible boundaries. On the basis of
these notifications, the petitioner claims the area in question to be
the forest land.
After the mutation entries were recorded as Gair Khatedar in
the year 1974-75, the respondent No.3 was given the Khatedari
rights in the year 1992. On the strength of the Khatedari rights,
the petitioner was/is in possession of these properties and,
therefore, in the year 2007, the applications were preferred for
conversion of the land under Section 90-B of the Land Revenue
Act. On such applications being preferred, the respondent-UIT,
Udaipur invited the objections from all concerned including the
petitioner and since no objection was received, the conversion
orders were issued by the UIT on different dates within the years
2007-2009.
After passing of the conversion orders, on 25.11.2011, the
petitioner filed detailed objections to respondent No.2-UIT
contending therein that the conversion orders passed by it is de
hors the law as the lands which are subject matter of the
conversion orders is a forest land. On the similar lines, a
complaint was also filed before the Collector, Udaipur upon which,
a joint inspection was undertaken by the Forest Department as
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(14 of 24)
well as the revenue authorities. The UIT, Udaipur replied to the
petitioner vide letter dated 09.01.2012 stating therein that since
no objection was received and the lands are under the purview of
Revenue, therefore, the conversion orders have rightly been
passed.
In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, whereby, a challenge
was laid to the conversion orders passed in favour of private
respondents. The Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, after
appreciating the evidence brought on record, rejected the appeal
preferred by the petitioner by a detailed order dated 25.11.2013.
This order of Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur was assailed by the
petitioner before the Board of Revenue by way of filing a revision
petition under Section 84 read with Section 9 of the Rajasthan
Land Revenue Act, 1956. The learned Board of Revenue, after
detailed discussion, rejected the revision petition preferred by the
petitioner vide order dated 04.12.2014 against which the present
writ petitions have been filed.
Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that a joint survey was conducted in the year
2011 by the Forest Department and the Revenue Officials and a
report was prepared whereby, the forest land was shown by
demarcating it with a "green line" and some part of the land in
dispute is inside the "green line" showing it to be the forest land.
Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the lands in dispute are of
Khasara Nos. 407 & 408 and the same are forest lands, therefore,
the proceedings undertaken by the respondent-State Authorities
under Section 90-B of the Act is de hors the law and no allotment
in such forest land could have been made. He further submits that
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(15 of 24)
the Revenue Department failed to make such entries in the
Revenue Records demarcating its land to be the forest land. He
further submits that a green line was also drawn and marked on
the map by the Revenue Officials clearly demarcating the forest
land and therefore, the process undertaken by the Revenue
Officials under Section 90-B of the Act is impermissible. Learned
Senior Counsel submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner
before the First Appellate Authority i.e. the Divisional
Commissioner, Udaipur was not maintainable and there was no
occasion for the First Appellate Authority to go into the merits of
the case and record the findings of fact on merit of the case. He
further submits that on the same ground, the Revisional Authority
i.e. the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer also entered into the
merits of the case and pronounced the judgments after scanning
the records, although, the revision petition itself was also not
maintainable before the Board of Revenue. Learned Sr. Counsel
vehemently submitted that the land of Khasra Nos. 407 & 408
belongs to the Forest Department and it comprises of the portion
of 1254 Bighas of land reflected in the Notification of the year
1942.
In nutshell, the submission of the learned Sr. Counsel is that
since the land in question is a forest land and it was not amenable
to allotment, therefore, any process undertaken by the
respondent-Authorities under Section 90-B of the Act was void ab
initio. He therefore, prays that the orders passed by the First
Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue are per se illegal
and the same are required to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, Mr. B.S. Sandhu & Mr. Girish Joshi, learned
counsels appearing for the private respondents have canvassed
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(16 of 24)
before this court the First Appellate Authority and the Revisional
Authority before reaching to the conclusion, had scanned the
matter threadbare and the entire record brought before was
discussed. Learned counsels vehemently submitted that since the
two lower authorities recorded a finding of fact, therefore, in the
writ proceedings, no interference is warranted. Learned counsels
further submitted that in the writ petitions preferred before this
Court, there is not even a single averment which shows that the
finding of fact recorded by the authorities below is contrary to the
record and the documents placed before them. Learned counsels,
therefore, submit that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by
the two courts below does not warrant any interference or re-
appreciation of facts by this Court.
Learned counsel Shri Girish Joshi for the private respondents
have chronologically submitted the date-wise events and state
that in pursuance of a Notification issued on 27.04.1942, the lands
comprising of 5 villages were declared as forest land. The area of
the land was 2900.80 acres. For the controversy in hand, the land
of Goverdhan Vilas is only required to be taken into consideration
which comprises of 1254 Bighas. He further submits that vide
order dated 15.06.1963, the Forest Settlement Officer, Udaipur
issued a list of total area with Khasra Numbers along with the area
of land given as forest land as well as rest of the land. Even as per
the said order dated 15.06.1963, certain lands of Khasra Nos.407
& 408 are shown to be the revenue lands. Learned counsel further
submit that the Jamabandi of Khasra Nos.407 & 408 of Samwat
1987 (Year 1930) also show these lands to be the revenue lands.
Learned counsel submit that since the lands in Khasra Nos.407 &
408 were revenue lands by the orders of regularization by the
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(17 of 24)
Advisory Committee in the year 1974 and 1975, the lands were
regularized in the name of respondent No.3 and other similarly
situated persons under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of
Agriculture) Rules, 1970.
Learned counsel submit that there is no infirmity in the
findings recorded by the courts below as the entire documentary
evidence shows that since inception the portion of lands which are
the subject matter of these writ petitions, were the revenue lands
and since those lands never formed part of forest land, the
process undertaken by UIT for conversion is just, proper and
correct. Learned counsel submit that since the two authorities
below have made threadbare discussions on the merits of the
case, therefore, any attempt to show that the appeals were not
maintainable before the first appellate authority and the revision
was not maintainable before the Board of Revenue is nothing but
an afterthought. He further submit that having failed on merits
before the authorities below, a feeble attempt is being made by
the petitioner before this court to show that the authorities below
were not right in entering into the merits of the case in the first
instance, as the appeals and revisions filed before them were not
maintainable.
Learned counsel submit that in any case, even if the finding
of fact recorded by the courts below is getting corroborated from
the records filed by the parties before those authorities and before
this Court, comes to the conclusion that the finding of fact
recorded by the courts below does not call for any interference,
then merely because the appeals filed were not maintainable will
not prejudice the case of the respondents and this Court should
not interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(18 of 24)
The submissions made by Mr. Girish Joshi & Mr. B.S. Sandhu,
learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, have been
adopted by Mr. Loonkaran Purohit, learned counsel for the
Revenue Department by submitting that the reply filed by the
Revenue Department before the authorities below and before this
Court emphatically shows that part of land which is the subject
matter of Section 90-B proceedings, was the revenue land and no
part of forest land was taken into consideration in these
proceedings.
Mr. L.K. Purohit, while supporting the orders passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur and the Board of Revenue
submits that even as per the report of the Tehsildar dated
04.02.2016 (Annexure-R/32), if the land of 85 Bighas in the
present case is added while calculating the forest land, it will
exceed the originally recorded land of 1254 Bighas of Goverdhan
Vilas. He further submits that there is no question of considering
the present 85 Bighas of this land as forest land.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar, have
gone through the detailed arguments made before this Court and
scanned through the records minutely.
The chronology of the dates taken into consideration for
reaching the stage of the conversion of land in the year 2007
shows that after the Notification issued in the year 1942, 2900.80
acres land was declared as a forest land, out of which 1254 bighas
of the land was of Village Govardhan Vilas. It is noted that the
land of Govardhan Vilas comprising of 1254 bighas was inclusive
of the lands of Khasra Nos.407 and 408, therefore, the subject
matter of the present writ petition revolves around Khasra
Nos.407 & 408 only. The area of lands comprising of Khasra
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(19 of 24)
Nos.407 & 408 is also reflected in the order of Forest Settlement
Officer, Udaipur dated 15.06.1963, therefore, there is no
hesitation in holding that in Khasra Nos.407 and 408, part of the
land belongs to the Forest and Revenue Department both.
It is also noted that Khasra No.407 comprises of total land
of 272 bighas, out of which 201 Bighas is shown to be the forest
land and 71 Bighas to be the revenue land. Similarly, the Khasra
No.408 comprises of 191.09 Bighas of land, out of which the
forest land is 177 bighas and remaining 14.09 Bighas is revenue
land. The distribution of the total land of Khasra Nos.407 and 408
is clealry mentioned in the revenue records, therefore, the finding
of fact recorded by the Courts below that certain pieces of land of
Khasra Nos.407 and 408 are revenue lands is well corroborated
from the documents placed before this Court.
It is also noted that the revenue entries showing certain
pieces of land to be the Government land are reflected from the
revenue entries made in Samwat 1987 (Year 1930) and thereafter,
the regularization of these lands was made in favour of the private
respondents under the Rules of 1970 on the ground that the
private respondents were landless persons. The allotment of these
lands was made on the recommendation of a Committee
comprising of ten persons including the Sub Divisional Officer,
Udaipur and the Tehsildar, Udaipur. These findings have
elaborately been discussed by the First Appellate Authority in its
judgment dated 25.11.2013. For brevity and for appeciation of the
minute details, the same are reproduced as under:-
"vihykèkhu iquxzZg.k vkns'k fnukad 17&12&2007 ds voyksdu ls
Li"V gksrk gS fd oknxzLr [kljk uEcjku dh Hkwfe tekcUnh lEor~
2060&2063 ds vuqlkj jsLiksMsUV la[;k&3 ds uke [kkrsnkjh ntZ
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(20 of 24)
gksus ds QyLo#i iquxzZg.k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA vihykFkÊ dk
dFku gS fd oknxzLr vkjkth vihykUV ds ekfydkuk gd ls
vkfèkiR; ,oa dCts 'kqnk vkjf{kr ou [k.M ckadh dh Hkwfe gS] xzke
xksjèku foykl ds lkfcd [kljk uEcj 407 o 408 lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ou
Hkwfe FkhA u;s lsVyesUV esa fookfnr [kljk uEcj lkfcd uEcj 407
ehu ls cus tks lu~ 1945 ls vkt rd ou foHkkx ds uke ntZ gSA
jktLFkku ljdkj }kjk fnukad 13&10&1964 dks tkjh uksfVfQds'ku
ls vkjf{kr ou Hkwfe ?kksf"kr dh x;h FkhA geus jktLFkku jkti=
foKfIr fnukad 13&10&1964 dk voyksdu fd;kA mä jkti= ds
vuqlkj xzke xksoèkZu foykl&669-50 ,dM+] ukbZ&85-50 ,sdM]
lhlkjek&1936-80 ,dM] cyhpk&125-80 ,dM o 'kgj mn;iqj&83-
20 ,dM dqy 2900-80 ,dM Hkwfe ckadh ou[k.M esa fy;s tkus dk
mYys[k gSA ekSdk xksoèkZu foykl dh 669-50 ,dM Hkwfe vFkkZr 1254
ch?kk 15 fcLok Hkwfe dk fooj.k [kljk cUnksoLr ckcr ou[k.M ckadh
jsUt mn;iqj xzke xksjèku foykl esa ntZ gS ftlds vuqlkj rFkk mi
ou lj{kd] mn;iqj ds i= Øekad 8253 fnukad 26&09&2013 ls
miyCèk djkbZ xbZ lwpuk ds eqrkfcd [kljk uEcj 407 dk 201 ch?
kk ,oa [kljk uEcj 408 dk jdck 177 ch?kk jdck ckadh [k.M esa
vk;kA ekStk xksjèku foykl dh ckadh ou[k.M esa 'kkfey] Hkwfe dk
ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 251 fnukad 01&08&1997 ls ou foHkkx jsUt]
mn;iqj ou [k.M ckadh ds uke ntZ fd;k x;kA egdek cUnksoLr
jkT; esokM+ dh tekcUnh lEcr~ 1987 ds voyksdu ls tkfgj gksrk
gS fd vkjkth uEcj 407 dk jdck 272 ch?kk o vkjkth uEcj 408
dk jdck 191 ch?kk 9 fcLok xSj dkfcy dk'r ntZ FkhA tcfd
ckadh [k.M Cy‚d esa [kljk uEcj 407 esa ls 201 ch?kk rFkk 408 esa
ls 177 ch?kk Hkwfe vk;hA mä uEcj 407 esa ls 'ks"k cpk gqvk 71
ch?kk ,oa 408 esa ls 14 chèkk 9 fcLok dqy 85 chèkk 9 fcLok Hkwfe
jktLo foHkkx ds LokfeRo ,oa vkf/kiR; esa jghA bl Hkwfe ds LokfeRo
,oa vkfèkiR; ckcr fdlh ds Hkh }kjk fdlh Hkh l{ke U;k;ky; esa
pqukSrh nh tkuk vfHkys[k ls çdV ugh gksrk gSA jktLo foHkkx dh
mä fcykuke Hkwfe ij lu~ 1974 ls iwoZ ds vfrØfe ds #i esa
dkfct dk'rdkjksa dks l{ke fu;[email protected] lykgdkj desVh }kjk
fnukad 10&07&1974 dks fu;[email protected] dh xbZA tks ou
vfèkfu;e 1980 ds çHkkoh gksus ls iwoZ dk gSA mi[k.M vfèkdkjh]
fxokZ mn;iqj ds vkns'k Øekad [email protected]&[email protected] fnukad
23&01&1975 ls Jh çrki firk uUnkth xqtZj dks vkjkth uEcj 408
esa 4 chèkk 15 fcLok jdck fu;eu djus dh Loh--fr nh x;hA [kljk
fxjnkojh lEor~ 2042 ftldk [kljk uEcj [email protected] cuk dj uD'ks
rjehe dh x;hA mä [kljk uEcj [email protected] ds gky uEcj 804 ls
809 jdck 0-5250 gsDVj cus gSA mä [kkrsnkj ls oknxzLr Hkwfe
jsLiks- la[;k&3 }kjk Ø; dh xbZ tks ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 412
fnukad 02&06&2004 ls dsrk ds i{k esa ntZ gksdj orZeku esa jsLiks-
la[;k&3 ds uke ntZ gSA
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(21 of 24)
lwpuk dk vfèkdkj vfèkfu;e ds vUrxZr rglhynkj] fxokZ] ftyk
mn;iqj ds i= fnukad 19&09&2013 ,oa mi ou lja{kd] mn;iqj
ds i= fnukad 26&09&2013 o 01&11&2012 ls çkIr lwpuk ds
vuqlkj foKfIr fnukad 13&10&1964 ls xzke xksoèkZu fodkl dk
669-50 ,dM+ vFkkZr 1254 chèkk 15 fcLok jdck vkrk gS ou
cUnksoLr ds jsdkMZ vuqlkj lkfcd vkjkth uEcj 1 ls 7] 10] 37-
39] 44 ls 48] 119 121 ls 123] 149 ,oa 402 rFkk [kljk uEcj 407
ds dqy jdck 272 chèkk esa ls 201 chèkk rFkk [kljk uEcj 408 ds
dqy jdck 191 ch?kk 9 fcLok esa ls 177 ch?kk dqy jdck
669]50 ,dM vFkkZr 1254 ch?kk 15 fcLok ckadh ou[k.M esa x;kA
[kljk uEcj 407 o 408 dk 'ks"k jdck 85 ch?kk 9 fcLok jktLo
foHkkx ds uke fcykuke jgkA ftlesa ls [email protected];eu fd;k x;k]
ftldk ckadh ou[k.M ls dksbZ lacaèk ugha gSA rFkk xzke xksjèku
foykl dk ckadh ou[k.M esa ntZ jdck 669-50 esa ls 493-04 ,dM+
xzke xksjèku foykl dh Hkwfe Hkkjrh; lsuk dks lqiqnZ dk tkuk
vfHkys[k ls Li"V gksrk gSA odhy vihykFkÊ dk dFku gS fd uD'ks es
gjh ykbZu ds eè; fLFkr leLr Hkwfe ou Hkwfe gSA ftlds vUnj
fdlh Hkh O;fä dks [kkrsnkjh vfèkdkj ugh fn;s tk ldrs] fdUrq
lsVyesUV ds ckn uD'ks esa gjh ykbZu dc] fdlds }kjk rFkk fdl
l{ke vfèkdkjh ds vkns'k ls Mkyh x;hA uD'ks esa gjh ykbZu dh
oSèkkfudrk ds ckjs esa dksbZ lk{; jsdkMZ ij ugha gSA rglhynkj] fxokZ
us Li"V fd;k gS fd uo'ks esa dksbZ rjehe jktLo foHkkx Lrj ij
ugha gqbZ gSA"
The facts noted by the First Appellate Authority were assailed
before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue after a
detailed discussion, reached to the same conclusion affirming the
finding of fact recorded by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
The finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Authority
and affirmed by the Revisional Authority does not require any
intereference by this Court as the learned Sr. Counsel for the
Forest Department has failed to produce any document to show
that the findings recorded by the Courts below are in
contravention of the Revenue Records or they are so perverse
which requires any interference by this Court. This Court also finds
that the scope of interference on the factual aspect recorded by
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(22 of 24)
the Courts below is very narrow and unless any glaring fact is
brought to the notice of this Court, no interference is warranted.
The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are
contrary to the documents placed on record, therefore, they are
not required to be interefered with.
This Court in the case of Ganga Ram & Anr. Vs. State of
Rajasthan reported in 2012 (1) RRT 325 held as under:-
"In this view of the matter, in considered
opinion of this court, the concurrent findings arrived
at by the three Courts below after due appreciation
of evidence on record cannot be said to be capricious
or perverse and the order impugned passed by the
Board does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so
as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of
its extraordinary jurisdiction."
In Deep Chandra Juneja Vs. Lajwanti Kathuria (Smt.)
(dead) Through L.R.s. Reported in (2008) 8 SCC 497, it was
held that well reasoned concurrent findings and reasons recorded
by the prescribed authorities under the statute or by the appellate
authority threunder would not warrant any interference unless
there is any illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction."
The submission of learned Sr. Counsel that the entire land of
Khasra Nos.407 & 408 is a forest land, is without any foundation,
therefore, declaration of the land comprising of 2900.80 acres by
a Notification issued in the year 1942 is of no relevance. The
learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the
part of Khasra Nos.407 and 408 for which the Section 90B
proceedings were undertaken, was actually the forest land and
since some parts of the lands comprising of Khasra Nos.407 and
408, which are the subject matter of these petitions, were not the
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(23 of 24)
forest lands and were duly recorded as revenue land supported by
the documentary evidence on record by the Revenue Authorities,
this court finds that the proceedings undertaken by the UIT for
conversion of the land under Section 90-B of the Act do not suffer
from any infirmity.
The contention of learned Sr. Counsel that since the appeal
was not maintainable before the First Appellate Authority,
therefore, recording of finding by Divisional Commissioner,
Udaipur is uncalled for and is noted to be rejected on the ground
that it was the petitioner who subjected himself to the jurisdiction
of the First Appellate Authority and not only this, the same has
further been taken by way of filing a revision before the Board of
Revenue and since the petitioner joined the issue on merit before
both these two authorities, it does not lie in the mouth of the
petitioner to undo whatever has been done by him when the two
authorities below have reached a finding against them to wriggle
out of the same. More particularly, the petitioner failed to show
by any documentary evidence before any of the Authorities below
as well as this Court that the subject piece of land is a forest land.
This Court also notes that even as per the latest report of the
Tehsildar dated 04.02.2016 (Annexure-R/32), if the possession of
85 bighas of land of Khasra Nos.407 and 408 is transferred to the
forest, the same will exceed the original area allotted to forest
vide Notification dated 27.04.1942 in the year 1942 to be over
and above the original land of 1254 bighas. As per the report, the
forest department is already holding the land in excess.
It is also the settled position of law that the judicial review of
the decision making process is permissble but not of the decision
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(24 of 24)
as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India vs. Parmananda reported in AIR 1989 SC 1185.
In view of the discusions made above, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by
the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur and the Board of Revenue.
Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed being devoid
of merit and substance.
Stay applications as well as other pending applications, if
any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
4-18-/Vivek/-
(D.B. SAW/128/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
